"AFL Considering September Shake-Up For 2026"

[Walshawk]

And just wait a year or two for them to change the concussion protocols from 12 to 21 says making the week off totally pointless.

They only need to increase it from 12 to 14 days to make the week off redundant. Many concussions are longer than a week off anyway.

 

[Osho]

This won't be the AFL option for this reason alone. The AFL are only entertaining the idea because it means MORE finals matches which equates to more $$$. And $$$ is all they care about.

Adding two teams to finals and still playing the same amount of games as we currently do, is not going to bring in more $$$.

I suppose the extra engagement of fans of teams placed down to 12 or so will increase attendance and streams, thus increasing revenue with no extra cost of extra games.

I'd be interested to know the physiological and other arguments of more games and rounds. What would be the maximum number of games per year for clubs? How many weeks should the season be?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

JUST LEAVE THE GAME ALONE ... FOR ONE SEASON, PLEASE!!!!

Why? The AFL know the following.

We change it yearly and even on the run and all you sheep just keep turning up and following it. Why would we stop changing things? the Fans love us changing the sport.

Would of been no chance of any rule changes on mass in the 70's and 80's. the fans would not of accepted it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I suppose the extra engagement of fans of teams placed down to 12 or so will increase attendance and streams, thus increasing revenue with no extra cost of extra games.

I'd be interested to know the physiological and other arguments of more games and rounds. What would be the maximum number of games per year for clubs? How many weeks should the season be?

EPL is 38 weeks

 

[joe444]

Translation:

"We're thinking of giving a team that over 23 games has performed below average a chance to win the entire competition within 5 weeks by only playing half the teams above them."

 

[LordLucifer]

What are you talking about? That's not how it is at ALL. Read the system. Jesus Christ I'm sick of these people that can't read. I'm gonna lose it soon.

Lose something you never had ??

 

[Elixuh]

Wildcard would have been good this year. But most years it’d just be a top 8 team reaming a perennial middle table side like the Saints.

Makes it even harder to win from 7 or 8.

 

[Nugett]

If a top 10 was to implemented I’d imagine it would similar to this:

Week 1

Top 2 get a bye

3 v 6
4 v 5

Winners get to play 1 & 2 respectfully. Losers play the winners:

7 v 10
8 v 9

Losers eliminated. winners advance to play the previous games

Week 2-4 current top 8 format.

 

[Occidental]

All finals should be knockout. We have had a knockout Grand Final for 100 years and two knockout Preliminary Finals since 1994.

Sydney finished top of the ladder last year and played 3 finals. TWO them, they faced elimination after one loss. Double chances are not needed. The NFL structure their knockout playoffs around the top-seeded teams getting a week off (ensuring that the earliest exit point is week two, not week one). We should do the same. It doesn't change the fact that the earliest exit point for the top teams remains week 2. That's exactly the same exit point under the current final-8

History is NOT on your side. In over 125 years there has never been a finals series organised where every final is a knockout game.
For the first 35 years of the VFL even the Grand Final itself wasn’t knockout for the team that finished on top. Top sides (Minor Premier) had the right of challenge to another game if they initially lost the Grand Final.
Finals have always had a weighting of advantage for sides who finished high on the ladder. Double chance, right of challenge…. anything but straight into their first Final as an elimination scenario.

 

[canny30]

All finals should be knockout. We have had a knockout Grand Final for 100 years and two knockout Preliminary Finals since 1994.

Sydney finished top of the ladder last year and played 3 finals. TWO them, they faced elimination after one loss. Double chances are not needed. The NFL structure their knockout playoffs around the top-seeded teams getting a week off (ensuring that the earliest exit point is week two, not week one). We should do the same. It doesn't change the fact that the earliest exit point for the top teams remains week 2. That's exactly the same exit point under the current final-8

Put the glass Barbie down mate.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Qualifying Finals (under the current system) aren't really finals in my view in a literal sense. They are really wildcard games to re-seed the top-4 teams.

A FINAL means just that - final. It's the final match for one of the teams in the match.

So, the current final-8 really has two wildcard matches (what we call the Qualifying Finals) and 7 pure finals that are elimination, hence finals

But that is all semantics in the end. All finals should be knockout. We've had two knockout Preliminary Finals since 1994 and a knockout Grand Final for 100 years for crying out loud.

Interesting position about all finals being knock-out
To reward the top 2 clubs you'd probably have to advance them both direct to the now penultimate week of prelims, otherwise the point of the home and away season is reduced

 

[Gavin Excell]

I think the current top 8 system is as good as it gets
Generally a premier has to beat fellow top 4 teams in a month and for that reason, will always deserve the flag.

 

[Osho]

EPL is 38 weeks

With how many games and how big squad sizes?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

With how many games and how big squad sizes?

They play each other twice, not sure on squad sizes.
They once used to only play in the winter season like we do and let cricket play ion the summer but they now play 3/4 of the year and life moved on.
No reason Footy season cannot go longer in the AFL. Just needs to be far better organised.

 

[joe444]

As a teacher, I can't help but look at Dills and Loz and think that they're basically up to the level of being Principal and Vice Principal (but still with "how did she get the job instead of John?" vibes) of a suburban high school.

You can get away with promoting people sideways, making bizarre claims of excellence, applying rules inconsistently etc at that level.

 

[Dan26]

History is NOT on your side. In over 125 years there has never been a finals series organised where every final is a knockout game.
For the first 35 years of the VFL even the Grand Final itself wasn’t knockout for the team that finished on top. Top sides (Minor Premier) had the right of challenge to another game if they initially lost the Grand Final.
Finals have always had a weighting of advantage for sides who finished high on the ladder. Double chance, right of challenge…. anything but straight into their first Final as an elimination scenario.

I'm not talking about how it is. I'm talking about how it SHOULD be. You can have an advantage over your lower-seeded opponents without needing second chances.

The old "right of challenge" from the old Argus system is a relic of the past. Ever since 1994, the minor-premier (and anyone in the top 4) has had to win TWO knockout finals to win the premiership. As soon as this happened in 1994, double chance became irrelevant and past their use by date.

You talk about "anything but straight into their first Final as an elimination scenario" as if it's a bad thing to be eliminated in your first final. What's the significance of the first final that makes it more special than the Preliminary Final or Grand Final? As long as the earliest exit point remains week 2, then how is that different to the earliest exit point under the current system? The top teams still can't be eliminated any earlier than week 2.

The double chance advantage is still there, it's just been totally replaced mathematically with a week off.

Current final-8
Top teams have a 50% chance of using a double chance
Top teams have a 50% chance of getting a week off (and therefore NOT getting a second chance)
(One or the other, but not both)

Knockout Final-10
Top teams have a 0% chance of using a double chance
Top teams have a 100% chance of getting a week off
(the week off is guaranteed, unlike the final-8 where you have to "win" to acquire it)

See what has happened here? The 50% chance of using a double chance has been reduced to zero and ADDED to the 50% chance of having a week off, making it, instead, a 100% guaranteed week off.

So, the double chance advantage is still there in a manner of speaking. It just manifests itself as a 100% guaranteed week off instead.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Repeat: It's arse piss.

I’m not aware of this fetish…
But you keep pissing Dan26 off for our amusement.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

I have an idea

what if we had a 'wildcard' system where teams faced off against each other in 23 games, split among home games and away games

after which, the top 8 teams progress to a 'wildcard FINALS EDITION' type round

these teams then progress through a 'WILDCARD FINALS EDITION' system until we get down to only 2 teams, who would face off in the "WILD CARD ULTIMATE FINAL", which is like almost like a grand finale of sorts

thoughts?

Furthermore, coaches should be dealt UNO cards they can play at any time…

 

[joe444]

I'm not talking about how it is. I'm talking about how it SHOULD be. You can have an advantage over your lower-seeded opponents without needing second chances.

So, the double chance advantage is still there in a manner of speaking. It just manifests itself as a 100% guaranteed week off instead.

I'm not completely averse to this, but the assumption of "should" is debatable.

The AFL is not really a tournament like, say, a tennis grand slam event is with its 128 participants and only 2 weeks of the calendar; nor is it like a golf where everyone is literally playing against the scorecard and not each other.

As a team sport with only one title to award a year, there already is a disparity between the number of weeks to determine finalists (24 or so) and to determine which of those finalists is champion (4).

To build in some kind of safety mechanism for an outlier result for a top team is not necessarily an ethical flaw or anachronism. It's just a question of how you do it.

In the NFL & MLB, top seeds bypass the first round of playoffs entirely.

In the NBA & NHL, it's knockout all the way, but we're talking about each "final" being divided into 7 games to, as always, avoid anomalous results.

Every competition has an anomalous result protection factor built in, as I would argue it actually should be, given the length of qualification and comparative brevity of finals.

Ours is the double-chance.

 

[joe444]

recent premiers who would not have been if the finals were full elimination:
2020 - Richmond (oh, the conspiracies)
2015 - Hawthorn
2006 - West Coast
2005 - Sydney
2003 - Brisbane

 

[Dan26]

I'm not completely averse to this, but the assumption of "should" is debatable.

The AFL is not really a tournament like, say, a tennis grand slam event is with its 128 participants and only 2 weeks of the calendar; nor is it like a golf where everyone is literally playing against the scorecard and not each other.

As a team sport with only one title to award a year, there already is a disparity between the number of weeks to determine finalists (24 or so) and to determine which of those finalists is champion (4).

To build in some kind of safety mechanism for an outlier result for a top team is not necessarily an ethical flaw or anachronism. It's just a question of how you do it.

In the NFL & MLB, top seeds bypass the first round of playoffs entirely.

In the NBA & NHL, it's knockout all the way, but we're talking about each "final" being divided into 7 games to, as always, avoid anomalous results.

Every competition has an anomalous result protection factor built in, as I would argue it actually should be, given the length of qualification and comparative brevity of finals.

Ours is the double-chance.

As I stated in my previous post, the guaranteed week off replaces the double chance. In fact, you don't even get a double chance in the current system if you win in week one.

The double chance advantage is still there, it's just been totally replaced mathematically with a week off.

Current final-8
Top teams have a 50% chance of using a double chance
Top teams have a 50% chance of getting a week off (and therefore NOT getting a second chance)
(One or the other, but not both)

Knockout Final-10
Top teams have a 0% chance of using a double chance
Top teams have a 100% chance of getting a week off
(the week off is guaranteed, unlike the final-8 where you have to "win" to acquire it)

The 50% chance of using a double chance has been reduced to zero and ADDED to the 50% chance of having a week off, making it, instead, a 100% guaranteed week off. So, the double chance advantage is still there in a manner of speaking. It just manifests itself as a 100% guaranteed week off instead.

You talk about some in-built safety mechanism, as if we all need a cuddle because - shock-horror - you can be eliimnated in your first final, (which takes place in week 2 I might add)

Sydney finished top of the ladder last year, played three finals and the two most important finals they played (the last two) they faced elimination after one loss. This has been the case since 1994. Double chances have been surplus to requirements since that year.

 

[canny30]

I’m not aware of this fetish…
But you keep pissing Dan26 off for our amusement.

With a name like Borussia I thought you be a connoisseur of all things fetish

 

[Dan26]

recent premiers who would not have been if the finals were full elimination:
2020 - Richmond (oh, the conspiracies)
2015 - Hawthorn
2006 - West Coast
2005 - Sydney
2003 - Brisbane

This is not true. In a knockout system, you wouldn't have the top 4 playing each other in the first week, which is what happened to the premiers you have mentioned here. The knockout system would be structured totally differently.

 

[Whiskers]

If a top 10 was to implemented I’d imagine it would similar to this:

Week 1

Top 2 get a bye

3 v 6
4 v 5

Winners get to play 1 & 2 respectfully. Losers play the winners:

7 v 10
8 v 9

Losers eliminated. winners advance to play the previous games

Week 2-4 current top 8 format.

This

With the desperation for a cash grab why wouldn’t you just add more finals to a top 10 finals series? Why stop at 2 and not add 3v6 and 4v5?

Calling something Wildcard when it’s not as we don’t have divisions and only gives you half the games in week 1 you could have is just silly.
Add 3v6 and 4v5.

Btw it’s weeks 2-5 that would be played as how the current top 8 is now.

 

[Bluelegs]

Got no issue with a wildcard round. It's more footy, we lose the most useless week on the footy calander, and provides an extra little advantage for the 5th and 6th teams.

This year, the last quarter of the season had way too many teams with absolutely nothing to play for.